Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behaviors: inactive apps return 202 with reason app_inactive instead of relaying events, signing secrets are redacted to a boolean plus hint, and legacyInboundUrls still route after a slug change. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds decision-relevant detail about response interpretation or edge cases. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return fields and unusual behaviors. It covers active/inactive handling, secret redaction, and legacy URLs—enough for an agent to correctly interpret results without additional assumptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter (api_key) is already fully documented in the schema, including when it is needed and when it is ignored. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List apps in your AnyHook account'. It further specifies the returned fields (inbound URLs, sources, destination URLs), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like anyhook_apps_create or anyhook_events.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for enumerating apps and checking their active state, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool is named, so routing between tools is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.